My mission is to explore how other countries around the world are dealing with education and special education issues.
I would like to visit and observe different types of schools that have proven records of success, wherever those schools may be. I would like to meet with school directors and administrators, government officials, leaders in the business world, and others who are responsible for implementing education systems or otherwise connected to education to learn more about how education is being addressed in their communities.
If you know of any remarkable schools in other parts of the world (especially special needs schools), please let me know about them. If you know of any education experts who are engaged in remarkable work in this field, please introduce me to them.
Please do not hesitate to share your thoughts or ideas regarding the above. Read more about my mission here.
Search This Blog
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
June 16, 2011
Dear Dr. East:
In your letter, you ask about the following scenario:
An LEA fails to meet their maintenance of effort. As a result, the LEA pays the State educational agency (SEA) an amount equal to the shortage. The SEA then returns the money to the U.S. Department of Education.
Question: In determining the base amount that the LEA must spend the following year, do they maintain the base amount from the previous year, or reset the base amount to reflect the lower amount actually spent the previous year?Under section 613(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and 34 CFR §300.203(a), except as provided in 34 CFR §§300.204 and 300.205, funds provided to an LEA under Part B of the IDEA must not be used to reduce the level of expenditures for the education of children with disabilities made by the LEA below the level of those expenditures for the preceding fiscal year. While the IDEA does not contain a specific provision that addresses the circumstance you raise with respect to LEAs, the Department must rely on the plain language of the statute and regulation with regard to the level of expenditures, which provide that an LEA may not reduce its level of expenditures for the education of children with disabilities “below the level of those expenditures for the preceding fiscal year.” See section 613(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 34 CFR §300.203(a). Under this language, the LEA, in the fiscal year immediately following the fiscal year in which it failed to maintain effort, is obligated to expend no less than the amount it expended in the prior fiscal year for the education of children with disabilities from either local funds only, or from State and local funds. It is not obligated to expend at least the amount it expended in the last fiscal year for which it met the maintenance of effort requirement. In other words, each year’s LEA maintenance of effort obligation is based on the actual amount expended in the immediate prior fiscal year.
As your question assumes, in the event that an LEA fails to maintain its required level of effort, the SEA must pay the Department, from non-Federal funds or funds for which accountability to the Federal Government is not required, the difference between the amount of local, or State and local, funds the LEA should have expended and the amount that it did expend. The SEA may then seek to recoup from the LEA, from non-Federal funds or funds for which accountability to the Federal Government is not required, the amount by which the LEA did not maintain effort. Whether the SEA seeks recovery of those funds from the LEA is a matter of State discretion.
Based on section 607(e) of the IDEA, we are informing you that our response is provided as informal guidance and is not legally binding, but represents an interpretation by the U.S. Department of Education of the IDEA in the context of the specific facts presented.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
"Low-income students need extra support and resources to succeed, but in far too many places, policies for assigning teachers and allocating resources are perpetuating the problem rather than solving it."- Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
Why does this happen? Why do we send the most inexperienced and lowest-paid teachers to the neighborhoods most in need of help? The article below addresses the issue.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Obama Administration To Allocate $150 Million To Improvements In Housing For Individuals With Disabilities
WSJ article avaialble at:
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
For a more detailed article from Autism Speaks, which co-funded the study, see:
For an abstract about the study, see:
Mayor Barkat discussed the future of this project, his reasons for supporting it, and his efforts to ensure its success. Dr. Hollander addressed the question of why there has been such an increase in the number of individuals diagnosed with autism and discussed some of the potential causes of the disorder. The event was well-attended and consisted of people from diverse backgrounds.
Photos courtesy of ICare4Autism:
|Partial view of the overwhelming show of participants at the ICare4Autism Breakfast with the participation of Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat to discuss the ICare4Autism Global Autism Center|
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
For more of the story, Disability Scoop directs you to:
To view the Disability Scoop website, visit:
Neither the IDEA nor its implementing regulations qualified any duty imposed on a state or local educational agency as contingent upon parental cooperation. Further, the [Anchorage School District] does not cite any binding case law, and we are not aware of any, that supports such a proposition.As a result, the ninth circuit vacated the district's order and granted the parents reimbursement for tutoring expenses in math and reading. The court also suggested that the parents would recover attorney fees as well.
The decision is significant because, in reimbursement cases, parent cooperation is sometimes thought of as one of three prongs in the analysis as to whether parents are entitled to reimbursement. This decision seems to say that a school district should not be able to use that as an excuse. It should also be noted that the ninth circuit chose not to remand this to the district court to reconsider the issue of FAPE, instead relying on the initial hearing officer's "thorough and careful analysis" which was sufficient to determine, as a matter of law, that FAPE had not been provided. The ninth circuit said, "whether [the student] received a FAPE is ultimately a legal question becasue the [school district] challenges the hearing officer's legal conclusions." I think some would argue that whether FAPE was provided is a factual question, taking into account what the child requires and what the district provided. But there you have it in slightly different terms from the ninth circuit.
All in all a good decision for parents.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
Alabama Law Known As "Section 28" Requires Schools To Report Students' Immigration Status To The State
Although it's not clear how such information obtained by schools would actually be used, one can imagine some of the consequences it might have. It could lead to some students whose families have questionable immigration status being denied entry to our schools. On one side of the debate, if there are students in our educational system whose parents are in the country illegally, with the financial straits and lack of resources plaguing our schools nationally, why should those parents be rewarded with the guarantee of a free public education for their kids? Taking it a step further, these students are eating up precious funding and resources that otherwise would benefit children whose parents are legal. You could see how this might affect special education as well - think of the dollars that could be put toward special ed if that money wasn't funding the education of children whose parents were never legally admitted to the U.S.
On the other side, those children whose parents came here illegally, did not take part in that decision and shouldn't be punished for their parents' actions. First of all, those children who were born in the U.S. are American citizens anyway, regardless of their parents' immigration status, and therefore are entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. What about those children who were not born here but were brought over by their parents illegally? I am not an expert in immigration law, but the NY Times article seems to suggest that a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing that issue held that states could not withhold funding for or deny entry to children of illegal immigrants because those kids were not responsible for their immigration status.
The immigration debate is a heated one, for sure. How Section 28, specifically, will affect education locally and in other states remains to be seen. If nothing else, this story demonstrates the tension that exists between federal and state government on the issue of immigration, each trying to influence legislation that could have significant ramifications for the country as a whole.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
He cites three reasons: (1) taxis will have lower suspension and thus people won't want to ride in them; and (2) the wider gap between passenger seat and divider would lead to injuries or just plain inconvenience; and (3) too expensive. Frankly, I don't know anything about suspension, don't know that I would recognize lower suspension if I saw it, and don't know that it would dissuade me from getting in a taxi for 6 blocks. Next - people are going to get hurt because of the wider gap? Couldn't they just be extra mindful not to stand up or get out of their seats while the vehicle is moving, or put on a seatbelt? I guess the final reason - money - is always a legitimate consideration when it comes to government spending. I don't know the numbers but there's got to be a way to make it cost-effective. There isn't? Well then maybe the mayor can cover the difference. He pledged to go into his pockets once already this year - perhaps he'd be willing to do it again.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Read more about it, including the implications for President Obama's waiver plan, by following these links:
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.
The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, a national membership whose primary goal is to secure high quality educational services for children with disabilities, urges a NO vote on the Isakson Amendment because students with disabilities deserve access to the same education as other students! (see letter attached to Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi)
Neither the data, which indicates that the students who benefit from an alternate assessment are far less than one percent, nor best practice would support placing more students into alternate assessments.
The Isakson amendment INCORRECTLY promotes that most students with disabilities can’t learn or achieve when most students with disabilities are able to learn and achieve, just like all other students, when provided appropriate services and supports.
The Isakson amendment promotes abuse and overuse of alternate assessments by allowing any student with a disability to be tested through these assessments.
The Isakson amendment will turn back the clock on the advances made in educating students with disabilities over the past 10 years.
Too many parents and students are not told, or may not fully understand, that when a student with a disability takes a different assessment than a student without a disability, there is no way to compare their performance, no way to accurately measure achievement gaps, and no way to know how well they have grasped the grade-level content. They are no longer on track for a high school diploma.
CALL TODAY!!. Call your Senators 202-224-3121 (TTY 202-225-1904). If you do not know who they are, you can look them up at www.senate.gov. Ask for the staff member who handles education or disability. Tell them to vote NO on the Isakson Amendment
Send an email - You can email your Senators through a Web Form available on the Senate website, http://1.usa.gov/Senat
Want to make a bigger impact? Personalize your message.
Members of Congress pay particular attention to personalized messages from their constituents. Include a personal story about how your child has had academic success and has achieved in the regular classroom with his/her peers due to high expectations and appropriate services and support.
For the Council for Exceptional Children blog, visit:
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
In Appeal No. 11-074, SRO Stephanie Deyoe considered this question. (For those of you having trouble keeping up with yet another SRO change, you are not alone.) The basic facts of this case are that the parents who had a child with autism and ADHD wanted the private psychologist they had hired to conduct a classroom observation at the child's public school. The school had denied the psychologist access, stating that it would cause too much of a disruption and that there was a concern about student confidentiality and safety. The SRO agreed with the IHO who had ruled in favor of the parents. Although a school district may impose certain requirements to ensure confidentiality and safety of the students, it cannot prohibit a private psychologist from entering the school to observe the child when such an observation is meant to assess the child's needs and abilities, and is necessary for a complete evaluation. Although the IDEA does not clearly set out this right, the SRO pointed to letters from the Office of Special Education Programs which support the right to such an observation. The district's informal policy of allowing district personnel to perform observations but preventing private psychologists from doing so was rejected.
A recent federal case from the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, Disability Rights of N.J. v. New Jersey Department of Education, also considered the issue of classroom observations but in a slightly different context. Here, the issue was a class action lawsuit alleging that schools across the state were not in compliance with certain requirements under the IDEA. The court said that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, during discovery a party has a right to enter onto property, which could include school grounds, so that the requesting party may conduct an inspection, which could include classroom observations. The Court ultimately struck down the request for classroom observations for a number of reasons, including: (a) the defendants in this case were the state-level educational authorities like the NJ Department of Education and the issues of denial of FAPE and least restrictive environment should have been directed against the local school district through the impartial hearing process; (b) the plaintiffs were not sufficiently specific about how the observations were going to be conducted; and (c) even though the judges could have given the plaintiffs some leeway, there would have been an enormous burden on the schools and the plaintiffs' attorneys did not do a good enough job connecting the dots for the judges as to why this was so important. The takeaway message here: if you're going to bring a class action and ask the court to allow discovery that would put extreme demands on the district in terms of time, personnel, and money - you better demonstrate a good reason for doing it.
What kind of elementary program will be right for your child?
What are your rights and options?
Hear a free presentation by Sarah Birnbaum of
• Find an appropriate kindergarten program
• Understand your legal rights
• Get through the Turning 5 process and create an IEP
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The parents in this case had asked the school district to conduct testing to determine if their child had a disability. The district did not test within 45 school days as mandated by Alaska law. The parents pursued their own independent testing for which they expected reimbursement from the district and implemented private tutoring services for which they also sought reimbursement.
An impartial hearing officer determined based on the evidence presented that the child was performing adequately in a general education classroom and did not need tutoring to access the curriculum, but granted some reimbursement anyway because of the district's delays. An appellate court reversed the award of reimbursement for tutoring, and the Supreme Court agreed, on the grounds that in order to be eligible for reimbursement for services, you have to first be eligible for services. The IDEA requires not only that a person have a disability but also that the disability impairs his/her ability to derive educational benefit.
The Supreme Court's ruling on reimbursment for the private evaluation, however, was in favor of the parent. A parents' right to have his/her child evaluated has nothing to do with whether the child is actually found to have a disability. The whole point of the evaluation, based on the school district's "child find" responsibility, is to determine whether a disability exists. Therefore, the court awarded reimbursement and, citing to Forest Grove, explained that this merely requires the district to pay an expense that they were required to pay all along.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Check out the press release here:
Read more at: http://www.educationnation.com/index.cfm?objectid=4541B4CE-DD49-11E0-AF1F000C296BA163&utm_source=912newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=912newsletter
How strictly does a court construe procedural requirements against a parent pursuing an IDEA claim against a school district? Well, in D.H., the court construed some procedural requirements loosely and in favor of the parent. One issue related to the timing of filing a complaint. If a student has moved out of one school district and into a new one, could the parents still bring the claim if the student is no longer attending school in the district the parents are suing? Surprisingly, some courts have held that parents would be barred in this type of situation. This makes little sense since from a "notice" standpoint because the IDEA has a 10-day notice requirement which contemplates that parents will file for an impartial hearing after the child has already enrolled in a private school. The Georgia court ruled on the issue in favor of the parents and explained as follows:
"IDEA is remedial in nature. Disabled students are guaranteed an appropriate public school education, and if a school fails to provide this education, IDEA enables these students to be compensated for the lack of educational opportunities. The opportunity to recover for a school district's violations should not be limited to the time when the student is enrolled in the school district."The court also considered whether failing to file a complaint before the child leaves the district constitutes a "failure to exhaust administrative remedies." The court stated:
"In this case, Plaintiffs allegedly attempted contact the District numerous times to schedule an IEP meeting pursuant to IDEA procedures. The frustration of repeated failed attempts to contact the District eventually intensified to such a degree that Plaintiffs felt compelled take immediate action and move D.H. to a new school. While the exact reason behind Plaintiffs' failure to file a due process complaint before transferring D.H. is unclear, what is clear is that if Plaintiffs allegations against the District are true, the District should not be rewarded for its avoidance techniques and its failure to respond to Plaintiffs' concerns."The main point, the court said, is that the exhaustion requirement is not meant to be applied absolutely where doing so would lead to an unjust result and it is important to remember that the purpose of the IDEA is to compensate students who have received an inadequate education.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Hawaii was slow to revise its state laws to match the changes in federal law. In this case, the Hawaii DOE relied solely on the severe discrepancy model and the Hawaii district court did not fault them for it. The 9th circuit, however, reversed the decision and remanded back to the district court. Upon remand, the district court will have to apply the appropriate standard, which encourages school district to consider a student's ability to meet grade-level and age-level expectations.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The court reasoned that if a district court has ruled on the case, there is no longer a threat of a "unilateral decision by school authorities" and, therefore, the protection of pendency is not necessary. The court adopted strict construction of the term "district court" in one provision of the IDEA to the exclusion of circuit courts. In the process, the court may have lost sight of the spirit of the law - to protect children in exactly this kind of circumstance. Children were meant to be protected from being placed in an inappropriate setting until a final decision on the case could be reached to show that the school district's actions were justified.
Here is a short excerpt from the decision:
"However, to require that the stay-put provision applies during a federal appeal could yield absurd results. Parents could continue to appeal to the Third Circuit and then the Supreme Court forcing a school district to reimburse private school tuition where multiple levels of review have found that the IEP offered to the child provides a FAPE. Further, this will discourage school officials from agreeing to provide support for private placement for fear that this leaves them required to pay until the child graduates regardless of changed circumstances because all the parents would have to do is continue to appeal."
Friday, September 2, 2011
According to Disability Scoop, school districts who fail to fulfill their "maintenance of effort" obligation may have found a loophole. In some instances defaulting districts are not being held to the $$ amount they were supposed to pay in the previous year, but rather they are expected to pay the number they actually paid in that previous year. Shouldn't there be stricter consequences for districts who fail to live up to their obligations?
I guess it's a balancing test. Each school district must do an analysis that looks something like this - "On the one hand we may lose federal funding for the year that we default on our obligation. On the other hand, if we default this year, then next year we will have to pay less than what would otherwise have been required."
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Read the article at:
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Read the New York Times article here:
For more on this point and an interesting (and quick) read, check out The Saber-Tooth Curriculum by J. Abner Peddiwell. It's an old but still very relevant to today's debate.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Ohel Simcha (Park Avenue Shul)
295 Park Avenue,
Long Branch, NJ 07740
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Mayor Bloomberg Announces Plans To Contribute $30 Million Of His Own Money To Help Disadvantaged Youth In New York City
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Read the full article at:
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Eastern District of New York Affirms Award Of Tuition Reimbursement For Rebecca School In Absence of SRO Decision
The case involved a claim for tuition reimbursement for the 2009-2010 school year for a young boy with autism whose parents enrolled him in the Rebecca School, a school in Manhattan for children with autism. The IHO had determined that the IEP and public school recommendation were not appropriate, and that the Rebecca School was appropriate. The parents had previously succeeded in their claim for the 2008-2009 school year and, under pendency, the DOE was ordered to pay the Rebecca School tuition for the 2009-2010 school year until a final decision on the merits for that year was reached. By the time the SRO finally addressed the appeal, it was July 7, 2010 which meant that the 2009-2010 school year had ended and the DOE had been on the hook for the full amount of the tuition...regardless of the final outcome of the actual case. In light of that, the SRO concluded that the case was moot and, therefore, chose not to rule on the merits of the case. However, he neglected the fact that his decision would have pendency implications for the future.
Although the EDNY could have sent the case back to the SRO for a determination, Judge Gleeson concluded that he had authority to rule on the merits even in the absence of an SRO decision and decided to render his own decision in the interest of an "efficient administration of justice." Judge Gleeson explained that the case was not moot because of the pendency implications going forward. He deferred to the IHO's decision and concluded that the DOE failed to offer an appropriate program and placement, and the Rebecca School was appropriate to meet the child's needs. Judge Gleeson noted that the parents had signed a tuition contract prior to the child's annual review and that the parents had made a deposit which was only partially refundable. However, he did not feel that these points damaged the parents' reimbursement claim because the parents had otherwise cooperated in the process. The DOE argued, as it routinely does for cases involving the Rebeeca School and other for-profit institutions, that for-profit schools were not meant to be covered by the tuition reimbursement provisions of the IDEA. Judge Gleeson rejected this argument and explained that Section 1415 of the IDEA confers "broad authority on federal courts to craft remedies necessary to ensure that a child's right to a free appropriate public education is complete." He cited to several Supreme Court decisions - Burlington, Carter, Forest Grove - which support the point of the courts having broad authority.
In sum, Judge Gleeson agreed with the IHO's determination in favor of the parents on the merits. As a result, the Rebecca School will continue to be the child's last-agreed-upon placement, unless the case is further appealed and a different conclusion on the merits is reached.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Recent case law supports the notion that it is not unconstitutional. That is, parents who were denied an appropriate program and placement by the school district, and chose to enroll their child in an appropriate parochial school, may be entitled to reimbursement for the entire amount including the religious portion. If you think about it, reimbursing parents for the cost of a parochial program does not necessarily say anything about the government's view of that program. It is not an endorsement of that school's religion. It simply means that the school district failed to fulfill its obligations to the child, the parent chose a private school capable of addressing the child's needs, and now the school has to pay for it. The fact that the private school has a religious component is a side issue because it was the parent's choice to put his/her money there, not the government's.
This issue had been addressed by courts in the past but, for some reason, parents continued to have difficulty. Recently, however, some judges seem to be adopting this reasoning which could perhaps be the sign of a new trend.
I don't know what legal support they thought they had for this position and I can tell you that they did not provide any such legal support to the parent. All the professionals involved in this child's life agreed and painstakingly explained that the child required intensive services in order to have any chance of making progress, and the reduced level proposed by the district would not be anywhere near what was required. To make a long story short, it took the threat of an impartial hearing to compel the school district to provide the amount of hours that the child actually needed. No impartial hearing was necessary because the matter was resolved once our office intervened and reminded the district that its position was not supported by the law. This type of situation is not uncommon and parents should be aware of what the law does and does not say so that they can properly deal with school districts in situations of this kind.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
These rankings were developed through a process of collecting data that involved assembling statistics from all 50 states and D.C.; reviewing information from numerous governmental non-profit and advocacy organizations; and consulting with Medicaid and disability experts around the country. A weighted grid was used to assign points to each state based on its performance in a number of categories such as promoting independence, tracking quality and safety, keeping families together, promoting productivity, and reaching those in need. These categories were further broken down into specific measurable criteria - i.e. subcategories (such as % receiving home and community based services; % living in resident settings with 1-3 people; family support services; etc. The study is based on data from 2009, the most recent available, and focuses not on all individuals with disabilities but only those with intellectual or developmental disabilities. It emphasized the importance of including these individuals within the community (not in isolated setttings such as large state institutions) and assigned the highest weight to those criteria that it felt were most closely related to inclusion.
Overall New York was ranked #17 which by itself doesn't say a ton. In terms of allocating resources to those in the community, New York was ranked #43. In terms of supporting individuals in the community and home-like settings, New York ranked #36. For keeping families together through familiy support, New York ranked high at #10. In terms of supporting meaningful work, New York ranked at number #36.
New York is one of only 9 states that report more than 2,000 residents living in large public or private institutions. New York is not on the list of states who have at least 95% of individuals served living in home-like settings (meaning, at home, in their family's home, or in setting with three or fewer residents). New York is not on the list of states who reduced the number of Americans living in large institutions by 20% or more from 2005 to 2009.
Other noteworthy points:
- New York is among the top few states when it comes to the number of residents in "congregate care" living situations of 1-3 people and it is also among the top states when it comes to the number of residents in congregate care living situations of 16+ people. This suggests to me that while it offers a lot of people smaller living arragements, improvement is needed with respect to those in larger homes.
- New York has a high number of large state facilities. Only Texas has more.
- New York is in the top 10 when it comes to overall spending for family support services - $56 million - but almost every state spends more money per family. This has to do with the sheer number of NY families who need family support services - a total of 41,571 families (highest in the country with the exception of California which has roughly 81,000 such families).
- New York has a waiting list of roughly 4,400 people for residential services. Only 5 states have longer wait lists.
- If you look at total expenditures, New York is the highest of all states. If we're spending so much money, why aren't we seeing better results?
I am not an expert in interpreting these data and my review of these figures is cursory at best. But I think a thorough understanding of what is going on here is important and that includes understanding why certain states consistently lead or trail. The study suggests that the size of a state's population or the affluence of its constituents is not the reason. California is a large state, Vermont is a small state, and both are leaders. Massachusetts is considered a wealthy state while Arizona is considered less affluent - both are leaders. According to UCP, Arizona and Vermont have consistently been ranked at #'s 1 and 2 since 2007. I think it would be useful to understand why this is the case and bring some of those tricks to New York.
ICare4Autism is an organization dedicated to tackling the global autism crisis by convening a global community of researchers, educators, and advocates to catalyze breakthrough innovations in autism research, diagnosis, and clinical intervention. Dr. Joshua Weinstein, the founder and president of ICare4Autism, has been an educator and administrator for more than four decades and is dedicated to helping children with special needs. Currently Dr. Weinstein is in the process of establishing a global autism center in Jerusalem. The center seeks to provide a meeting ground for researchers, educators, and advocates involved with this cause and to create opportunities for powerful collaborations for the detection and treatment of autism. It will also offer a special education school program to meet the needs of Israeli children on the autism spectrum. The research and education center is slated to open in 2014.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The story of a young man with Asperger's, a form of autism, who was shot dead by cops in Florida last week is as confusing as it is sad. The mother of an 18-year-old man called the police for assistance responding to her son's menacing behavior. Suffering from depression, he was threatening to commit suicide with a knife in his hand. The mother hoped that the police would assist in taking him to a hospital and getting him proper medication. The police who responded went into the home and ended up shooting him with deadly force because of some perceived threat to their safety. Assuming that the cops were unable to approach him because of the knife, aren't they trained in other forms of restraint? And assuming that they absolutely had to shoot, aren't they trained in how to accomplish this without causing fatality? This is a hearbreaking tragedy for the family and a reprehensible and disgraceful intervention by the police department.
Friday, June 24, 2011
For those interested, the text of the bill can be viewed at:
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Interesting Example Of The Interplay Between State And Federal Governments When It Comes To Special Education Funding
Full text available at:
Why should you be concerned? Two bills before the Senate (S5816 and S5758A) would:
To read the full text of these bills, visit http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi. Type in the bill number, click on the box at the top of the page that says "text," and then hit "search." The proposal about reducing the statute of limitations from 2 years to a shorter period has been attempted before and has failed. Mediation is intended to be an alternative to an impartial hearing, not a prerequisite. The passage of either of these amendments would be an abrogation of the rights that parents currently possess.